Primary Menu

There are no doubt extreme advocates of music which deals only in sounds outside of the traditional range of orchestral musical instruments, and also there are presumably dinosaurs who believe that music can and should only be made with the traditional instruments. But to anyone living in the 21st Century, with only a modest openness of mind, such views are far too restrictive. The creative exploration of timbres is clearly potentially a major dimension of the composer’s work.

One dimension lies in the combination of timbres, a field which was opened up in the concert world above all, at least to my mind, by Webern, by Ives, and by Varese. The latter first expanded the concept of what could be done with the traditional orchestra (eg Ionisation) and then with electronic sounds (Poème électronique )

Less regarded by the musical Establishment were the creators in other fields – in particular the Swing/ jazz big band, extended further by Sauter Finegan, Stan Kenton and, wonderfully, by Miles Davis ( Birth of the Cool, and the albums with Gil Evans).

Composers have also built on the work of anthropologists and ethnomusicologists, finding inspiration in world musics such as the Balinese gamelan (starting with Debussy!), the African drum ensemble and Northern Indian Classical music (John McLoughlin). Felix Cross has used the music of the Caribbean for major musical/operatic projects.

Yet I feel that so far, we have usually only drawn upon such music. The world has changed: communication is rapid, easy and relatively cheap, and electronic media make it possible to conduct dialogues or lessons across the world, to build musical recordings at a distance and even for electronic musicians (such as DJs) to “jam” together.

It therefore seems to me that composers should perhaps be working directly with combinations of the various ensembles mentioned above. Already musicians such as jazz saxist Courtney Pine have created works with both jazz musicians and musicians from other black music genres. But how about a composition which combines on equal terms say a string quartet, a sitar and a tabla player and a blues guitarist? (the mind reels ! – but the point holds, I think).

Furthermore, I am certain that the orthodox or Establishment musical world is at best unaware and at worst disdainful of what is achieved in this respect by musicians who work in commercial Dance forms. Yet even a casual reading of the professional press (eg Computer Music magazine) will reveal their deep preoccupation with sound quality in all its aspects, resulting in the most subtle differences, even in the case of instruments traditionally scorned by the “sophisticated”, such as the bass (or kick) drum. Few composers could not learn from these studio musicians and their manipulation of electronic parameters such as compression,distortion, reverberation and equalisation.

The other dimension of sound colour and texture lies in what can be done on the individual instrument. At this point, the interest in sound for its own sake becomes intimately liked with the way in which the performer communicates emotion, makes contact with and moves the audience.

Of course, the sensitive use of a range of subtle changes in timbre (caused, for example by placement of a bow, or touch) together with the effects of accent (typically generating more cutting or harsher overtones) is a basic part of the skills set of all performers. Further interest is added by articulation (legato, staccato) and by portamento or glissando between notes.

But I am inclined to believe that much more could be learned from other cultures. African drummers expect to get a large range of sound out of their instruments – for example, a player of the Atsimewu drum used in the music of the Dagomba people (Ghana) is expected to produce nine distinct sounds. It could be argued that the very centre of the art of the Blues is an infinite range of techniques which turn a limited range of notes and configurations into masterpieces of musical expression.

The emphass on these aspects of music has been developed by various anaylsts, following the insights of Charles Keil (eg Keil C. (1966). Motion and feeling through music. Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 24, pp. 337-349; Keil, Charles. “Participatory Discrepancies and the Power of Music.” Cultural Anthropology 2, no. 3 (1987): 275-283).

He formulated the notion of “participatory discrepancies” . To make the notion clearer, he wrote: For “participatory discrepancies” one could substitute “inflection,” “articulation,” “creative tensions,” “relaxed dynamisms,” “semiconscious or unconscious slightly out of syncnesses.” For “process” one could substitute “beat,” “drive,” “groove,” “swing,” “push,” etc., and for “texture” one could substitute”timbre,” “sound,” “tone qualities,” “as arranged by,” and so forth. This was a response to the work of Leonard Meyer, who was an advocate of the values of “classical” music. Keil felt that the theory “could not account for the value and greatness I felt in the John Coltrane Quartet, in jazz generally, and in all the groovy sensual music of the world”.

Certainly, for me, music can even have a classically definable structure, but can be given a whole new dimension if the performer is then given the freedom to add “participative discrepancies” of a type way beyond what is acceptable in conservatory music training. Following the direction indicated by the blues and by free jazz, the given pitched notes can be modified or transformed to the point of abstraction.

Starting from the most general point, it is obvious that music is an art which acts through the ear. Thus the whole world of sound is the potential material of music, just as colour is the essential (but not of course only) material of the painter. For me, all sound has a potential to be music. However, it is not at this point music, since music is not only heard, but has impact or significance.

This is still not an adequate definition, since a sound, for instance the accent of one’s home town, may have significance because of its personal associations. And an explosion certainly has impact. For sound events to be music they must also be organised and presented by a human being.

It might be argued that, for some decades now, this would ignore music made by artificial means, notably by computers. But I argue that the generating force is still a human being – the computer did not program itself.

There certainly situations in which the creator has intentionally relinquished responsibility (as did John Cage in Symphony for 12 Radios) and so did not know what the outcomes would be. Cage was partly concerned with rejecting music which is concerned with personal expression, instead relying on chance to generate the sounds. Cage wished to get away from precisely what I am arguing for – the taking of responsibility for organising sound.

I do not accept that this removal of self is possible ( I certainly don’t think it is desirable). Among others, the French author Emile Zola wished to create a work analogous to science, in which the world is observed and presented, and the author merely records objectively what exists in the world. That this is not possible seems apparent to the common sense view – however much we may change during our lives, how can we be anything but unique individuals inhabiting our own space, and with unique histories and so a distinctive view or slant on the world ? If more than “common sense” is required, we can note that it is a fundamental of sociological thinking that the observer cannot be completely detached but brings a world view – Marxist sociologists, especially, see our views as being culturally constructed. Then of course there are the immense debates in science about objectivity – or the lack of it – notably around the work of Popper and Kuhn – not to mention the many (I believe at times dubious) extrapolations of Heisenberg, to the effect that the observer inevitably affects what it observed.

There are other arguments against the Cage type of view. One is that such composers nevertheless consider themselves as contributing to the world of serious art. Thus their intervention is conscious, planned and very individual, even though the content of that intervention is not structured by them. But morally speaking, we cannot take an action and then wash our hands of it.

However, for me, this music is not of great value as music , because I see the above type of composer as making a philosophical statement through music, using music as an example. Like conceptual art, this may have interest, value or popularity, but let us insist what it is – a dramatic form of presenting ideas (often rather obvious ideas) of a general nature.

In fact, visual art gives us a further step in the analysis, in the notion of found art, such as the famous Fountain of Marcel Duchamp (which was a urinal displayed on a pedestal).Clearly this can make us think, but it is again a reflection upon art – it draws our attention to an aspect of the visual environment which we may not have noticed. Interesting, possibly, but a perspective on visual experience, not an artistic work. ( I should state that the latter term is not meant to refer only to Beethoven and such musicians – the music of Justin Bieber would also meet the first level criteria which I am trying to lay down).

We can find similar examples in aural art too. It seems to me that works such as Drift Study of La Monte Young are not art works, but works making a statement or seeking to heighten our awareness of the world of sound.

Some might argue that the same could be said of a recording of the rhythmic sounds of a railway train, for example the case of Pierre Schaeffer noticing and drawing attention to the musical dimensions of such sounds in Etude aux Chemins de Fer. But in contrast to the productions I have so far mentioned, I consider this piece not only to be an artistic work but a work of art. The reason is that the capacity for sensitive and imaginative aural observation shown by Schaeffer is then extended to create a work of some length (the first requirement of Aristotle’s view of literature, as stated in the Poetics). The work also has form and structure, which certainly draws us into a sensuous experience of timbre and rhythm, but also gives and requires an intellectual appreciation of the selection and ordering – in short the composition – of these sounds. A descriptiion of the work in these terms by Robert Frank can be found at http://faculty.smu.edu/robfrank/podcasts/Site/Temporal%20Elements%20in%20Music%20by%20Robert%20Frank/AF380FEB-0421-43D3-8988-3000E9BCCB40.html

Thus my first conclusion is that the whole world of sound is the resource bank for the composer, but that for me to consider what is presented as a musical work, such sounds must presented in composition of some length and manifesting unique human capacities of selection and ordering. There must be an intention to present a view of the elements of music, and typically some more general statement about the world is also presented. Such a definition immediately includes such masterpieces of electronic music as the Poème électronique of Edgar Varèse, Paul Lansky’s Six Fantasies on a poem by Thomas Campion and the Wireless Fantasy of Valdimir Ussachevsky.

“Criticism, though dignified from the earliest ages by the labours of men eminent for knowledge and sagacity, has not yet attained the certainty and stability of science”
Samuel Johnson (creator of the first English dictionary)

“Almost all our knowledge is only probable; and in the small number of things that we are able to know with certainty, in the mathematical sciences themselves, the principal means of arriving at the truth—induction and analogy—are based on probabilities. I believe that we do not know anything for certain, but everything probably” Christiaan Huygens (17th Century astronomer)

“Objective evidence and certitude are doubtless very fine ideals to play with, but where on this moonlit and dream-visited planet are they found?” William James (19th century psychologist and philosopher) The Will to Believe”The demand for scientific objectivity makes it inevitable that every scientific statement must remain tentative for ever”. Karl Popper (philosopher of science) The Logic of Scientific Discovery

Music exams also provide a sorely needed response to another set of issues.

The mixture of a strong inclination to risk aversion, the desire to protect and justify one’s actions, and an absolute obsession with targets and measurability, has given educators (and many others) an increasing nightmare of forms to be filled, and boxes to be ticked. A friend recently took early retirement from teaching, having decided that an impoverished life was preferable to the depressing morass of paper work – assessments, monitoring, reports, statements of aims which had come to mean that she spent more time on such matters to meet the demands of professional administrators than she did on teaching. She seems to be one of a large number of teachers who would at least like to follow the same route.

The latest lunacy of which I have heard is the suggestion that computer marking of examinations will become universal within a decade or so. This is pure sci-fi. The only way in which a machine such as a computer can do this is by reading answers entered (as for example in certain IELTS papers) into boxes into computer readable form (e.g. Y or N, 1,2,3 etc). The IELTS authorities apply this to the Reading and Listening Tests, which are carefully devised to produce answers which can be rendered into such a form. But the same authorities continue to use examiners (human beings with ears, eyes and a brain) to mark the Speaking and Writing Tests. Why ? Because there is no sign that computers, even by using Artificial Intelligence, are anywhere near able to do (even with effort) what humans are supremely equipped to do, which is to assess what they experience according to (often complex) criteria.

Musicians have long recognised this, because it is in the nature of the subject. let’s consider the case of a Grade exam in Piano Playing (the same applies to other instruments).

Normally the student must demonstrate competence in the “nuts and bolts” of music – such as scales, chords, and in the Aural Test, the recognition of the interval (distance) between two notes. These requirements can defined precisely. In the exam a named scale can be requested, to be played at a named speed, volume, and articulation (e.g. staccato). These elements are susceptible to precise measurement, and it would be possible to devise a system which identified every departure from the stated criteria. In fact, this is not done. It would be very costly to create and administer, and I doubt that there would be sufficient improvement on the judgement of a trained examiner, to merit the expense.

The student is also required to perform various pieces (typically three with contrasting natures and problems). These will embody those aspects of technique, style and expression which the Examiner Panel (consisting of experienced examiners) has deemed to be a natural progression logically and musically, and which are also appropriate to a given level of study. Thus, for example, the performance of a Bach fugue would only be expected at a high grade (7 or 8), whereas a Two Part Invention would be a more suitable move into polyphonic music at, say, Grade 5.

It will be useful for some readers if I give an example from a very different type of exam – the Electric Guitar exams of the Registry of Guitar tutors. These also require demonstrations of technical ability. But since improvisation is an essential skill for any player in non-classical areas such as pop, rock or jazz, the ability to improvise is also tested from the earliest stages. This is not the place to go into technical detail, but I can attest from personal experience of the Examiner training sessions, that what counts as competence is very clearly demonstrated in detail (giving for instance the notes which are or are not to be expected, and the types of rhythmic flexibility which a candidate should show). The standards are very clearly articulated, not least because the Registry gives high importance to using examiners who are or have been working musicians, but the latter often expect standards which would be unreasonable demands on the typical learner.

The above examples show that again, the demands of the pieces can in some respects be stated in terms of precise criteria, and are measurable. The same point about the cost of mechanical assessment applies.

However, it is obvious that music is not only or even primarily a matter of definable techniques, and in this it again presents an illustration of what can, and I assert has to hold in a sensible examination system.

The good performer must exhibit an increasing grasp of expression, of the emotional dimension of music, of the nature of authenticity and appropriateness within a given style, and in the “popular” forms, a sense of the precision and movement of rhythm parts.

Again, these can be defined, but they cannot easily be measured. Nor do they need to be, because they can be perceived by a trained listener. At this point, the exam system needs to stop a compulsion to seek out some spurious and in fact unattainable objectivity, but to accept that we are and have to be in the realm of subjective human judgements. A judgement on the “conviction” manifested in a given performance is an opinion, not a measurement.

But this is not to say that any old emotional reaction by the judge will do, that anything goes, and that the candidate’s mark is a matter of chance – which examiner you get – and an arbitrary judgement – whether the examiner happens to like what you do.

This is because the examiner has to be selected by peers, who assess whether his/her understanding of what is to be assessed is indeed professional and in line with what is generally accepted. The latter phrase may horrify some people. They may argue that this allows the existence and power of self-selecting clubs, which may well be out of touch or even opposed to the values of another group.

If by this they mean that the examiners of the Associated Board are not typically interested in, responsive to or capable of judging Heavy Metal music, they are probably right. But the “AS Board” examiners don’t do this, they don’t seek to, and make it quite clear that their exams are not concerned with this sphere of music. By contrast, the Registry Electric Guitar panel does contain such experts (and they are experts).

My point is that in any given area (not just music) there is a body of agreed assumptions and values, which can be stated, monitored or passed on. Of course, once in a lifetime you may have in front of you the next Jimi Hendrix or Charles Ives, who presents you with a musical experience which puzzles, which you do to know how to assess. But exam systems are not there to detect originality and genius, but to assess that widely agreed body of knowledge which the overwhelming mass of the population needs to master. Geniuses have necessarily to make their own way.

By now, many readers may be anxious that such a system is nevertheless open to error or even abuse. I understand this fear. I have been at many standardisation meetings in several spheres, and sometimes the range of marks awarded in the training sessions is worryingly wide. Added to this there is clearly the danger of human error, or (much more rarely) prejudice.

As the matter is ultimately subjective, there must always be some risk. There is and can be no objective truth, no 100% certainty in such matters.

But the danger can be and is minimised in various ways. Standardisation tests (of the examiners), moderation, second marking and other checks are routine. Statistical checks can reveal if there are departures from the norm, which can then be investigated. There is an appeal procedure, to give a further option to candidates who feel that they have suffered some injustice.

The most obvious way to counter the dangers of subjectivity is to increase the numbers of examiners – at a certain point the consensus becomes clear. In practice it is a choice between having one or two. Thus the Cambridge First Certificate in EFL uses two in the Speaking Test; IELTS uses one, backed by recordings which are used for monitoring standards and dealing with appeals. Grade examinations in Music use one, Diploma exams two.

What those who want certainty must realise is that (a) machines won’t do the job (b) it depends how much you are prepared to spend (c) there isn’t any absolute certainty in such areas of knowledge. I believe that point (b) is the one which needs constant repetition, but that politicians don’t say it, for fear of unpopularity. It’s really very simple: you get what you pay for and you pay for what you get. Since there is always a limit on resources, it is the taxpayer who has to decide what the priorities are. Mine are quite simple: health, education, pensions and support during sickness or unemployment. If that means that other goodies are much scarcer, then so be it.

In the present context of music exams I think the level of guarantee of quality is about right, but that there are probably some areas which could be improved. To have four examiners instead of one would offer more guarantee (though it would be daunting for the candidates !) but not such as would merit increasing the administrative costs fourfold.

Today’s message: Music exams show us that in making decisions about assessment we must consider the nature of the knowledge we are dealing with. In the case of Music, (and many other subjects) some aspects are suited to accurate measurement, whereas others need judgement. This inevitably gives a grey area of assessment.

is aged five months. Well, not really. The student is her mother, Rachel. She came for lessons about eighteen months ago, and one time, as she left, said she had met an interesting man…She then vanished for months. Then one day she got back in touch, to say that the young man had been so interesting that they had got together and were now the proud parents of Maya, a beautiful little girl (parents always say that – well, they would, wouldn’t they, but in fact it’s true). So she would like to get back to playing her guitar. However, there was a problem of child care, so could she bring Maya. I’ll try anything (well, most things) once, so I said yes.
On the day Rachel arrived, looking very happy, with Maya, in her buggy, looking dozy at the end of a nice sleep.

As the father of three, I knew what was needed, so let Rachel settle Maya, who was a little uncertain about this strange man who didn’t look at all like her father, but seemed to get on well with her mother.

We talked a bit about Rachel’s news, the adoring grandparents (who weren’t doing the babysitting, as one pair live in Australia and the other pair in New Zealand). Then we talked about what Rachel wanted to do guitar-wise, and picked a track on a compilation she had made for me. She had done this one before but wanted to start with something she knew. Rachel then took the guitar and tried to recall what she had done before.

But, of course, we are forgetting Maya, who decided that she was bored with sitting in a crummy old buggy. So we agreed that Maya would sit with me, while I watched Rachel play and advised.

For a few minutes this worked. Then it was clear that Rachel should get into another piece. So I “pass the parcel” back to Rachel, so that I can go to the CD player, listen to the track, decide on the main features to be learned, then play it again to point out to Rachel what I intend to do. I then play the first phrases we are going to learn.

Time to put down the guitar next to Rachel, take Maya, cuddle her and say nice words etc, between giving Rachel instructions. These are on the lines of “Play a chord of C. Strum 4 in a bar. We’ll try this with the recording in a minute (remember Rachel is holding the guitar, and I am holding her daughter). Now I want to teach the phrase I showed you. Put your first finger, on string 5 at fret 1…”

Now presumably because Maya is an intelligent girl, but she isn’t being allowed to play, she starts to get restless. We think that perhaps she needs Mum for a minute. Rachel puts down the guitar and comes to get Maya, at which point she realises that her darling girl has expressed her opinion about this new man in the time-honoured manner favoured by babies. Is it all right if she changes her ? I fully appreciate the problem, having had to deal with it many times myself, so I offer use of bathroom, and ask if she needs anything. I am delighted to observe that, though Rachel is new to the business, she is wonderfully organised (she has a bag with a changing mat etc) and has an ease of manner and competence which not only achieves the task brilliantly, but helps explain why Maya is such a happy little girl.

It was clear that Rachel was getting into the guitar tasks I was giving, and that she can be left to practice at home what we have done so far. So while she enjoys having Maya on her lap, I demonstrate what we are going to do next, do it again while I talk it through, and write down the relevant information.

Time for me to take Maya, who has decided that this old boy may look a bit weird compared to her handsome Dad, but can’t be too bad, because it means her Mum can play the guitar to her, which she does at home. Also, being relieved of her burden, she can look around this room which is full of strange things and stranger noises.

Rachel gets on well, because my written instructions are very clear, though my writing, as ever, needs an expert in Chinese to decipher it. However, just as she is getting into it, Maya decides that time is getting on (it’s about 4pm and teatime) so her mind moves to that other permanent interest of babies. She starts to turn toward me, and nuzzle up to me, and, as I have noted this lack of discrimination in babies for the first few months, I wonder whether to say “Sorry, wrong type!”, but hesitate to do so, as I don’t know Rachel that well. However, with her calm and quietly assured manner, she asks if it will be OK to feed Maya. I have no problem with this, as all my children were breast-fed, as were various nephews and nieces. (I was appalled to read in our local paper last week a letter ranting against Mums who fed their babies in public, comparing it to “fornicating or urinating publicly”).

This is a time for calm, so I answer a couple of guitar queries from Rachel, and make the decision not to overload her with Part 2 of the piece, but otherwise we talk about her new life, how she has been able to find other Mums in the same position close by, and so on.

Maya is now happy to go into her buggy to have a little rest after her exertions, while Rachel recaps on what we have done, and we discuss the next moves. Then Rachel sets off into the world again to get onto the Tube system (difficult enough with a buggy) before the Rush Hour.

“Today’s students – even at University-do not have the basic skills of spelling and grammar – this is the result of the constant use of mobile phones, texting, and computer games” (Anon but could be any number of commentators)

Quotes of the day: We believe that to err is human. To blame it on someone else is politics Hubert Humphrey (US Vice-President)

Oh, dear, poor old students – they really cannot win. First they do well – so they are told the exams have been dumbed down. Then, as they get up off the floor – pow ! – they are told that universities are unhappy because students are “lacking necessary skills”. Has anyone pointed out that the students don’t set the exams – they just have to take them ?

When you press the hand-wringing lecturers what it is that they want, you usually find the following:

(a) “their spelling/grammar is appalling” (spare me ! as an ex-English teacher, I could spend all night answering that one – I’ll leave it to Stephen Fry in his current series on Radio 4 – Tuesday 9.30am)

(b) “They can’t write essays” (this from the people who will take foreign students with IELTS Band 6 on post-graduate courses!)

(c) “they have no study skills” (same comment, to which I add the fact that by now the universities should by now have grasped the fact that in many countries education is closely equated to being told, learning by heart and regurgitating what you have been told)

(d) “they have no analytical skills”
Let it be clear. I am fully in agreement with the need for the above requirements in anyone who is to be taken seriously as a university graduate. But neither the students nor their school teachers are responsible for this situation. They just train to jump the fences.

Why have the universities, who have enormous influence both officially and behind the scenes not made clear that students are required to manifest these skills and that if the courses and exams they take do not prepare them suitably, they need to be changed ?

The equivalent to (a) (spelling/grammar) above is to be found in the Music Theory/Musical Literacy exams. in which it is made quite clear that accuracy is essential. The same is true in the City and Guilds exams which I know of. This can be seen as petty or trivial, but sorry, you either want the accuracy or you don’t. Musicians think it is important – otherwise the person reading the music doesn’t play the right notes.

With regard to (c) (study skills), it needs to be recognised that a good part of this is subject specific. To learn to study Physics, you need to study Physics, and so need to be taught by someone who has. In Music, it is hard to imagine what a teacher would be doing, if s/he did not routinely show the student how to approach a given problem. The test of the skills lies in the exam result – in Music the student who has not studied and does not apply rational methods is unlikely to meet the criteria of performance.

The equivalent of “performance” in an academic context is typically (b) “writing essays”. So if you want to see what students can do, get them to write essays. And if you fear that they may simply learn by heart a patter which in turn they have cribbed from the Internet, set them a task under controlled conditions. So in Music, you don’t ask for a recording (which can be fiddled – pun of Victorian banality!), you make them play. Or they do a compositional task in exam conditions.

When they do this, they will then demonstrate (or not) “analytical skills”. And how do you do this – by setting up a system which rewards such skills – the schools will then build it in. Give tasks and topics which need analysis.

In Music this is done in two ways. In performance tests, teachers will encourage the student to think of the music as not merely a sequence of notes, but as a structure, with dynamics and movement. Also musicians recognise that this is an advanced task normally sought at the higher grades, though from the outset, stress is laid on the fact that credit is given for a “musical performance”.

In the case of more intellectual analysis, students will be prepared by being taken through the process (set works), but if a more probing test is needed, they will be given an unprepared work to analyse. This used also to happen in English Literature at A level and beyond – I don’t know if it still does.

Today’s summary: I say to universities “Stop moaning, use your influence to get exams which deliver students with the types of skill you need, and refuse to take those students who don’t meet your entrance requirements”. But then, that would have some very interesting financial, political, and moral consequences…

Today’s quotations:“Thousands of geniuses live and die undiscovered – either by themselves or by others”. Mark Twain
“For even that vulgar and tavern music, which makes one man merry, another sad, strikes in me a deep fit of devotion, and a profound contemplation of the First Composer; there is something in it of divinity more than the ear discovers”. Sir Thomas Browne, Religio Medici

After all that I have written so far, you may say that I seem to be avoiding issues such as quality, excellence and talent in music. Not at all.

If you are 7 years of age, and first start to learn an instrument, you can plod along for a few months, in between school projects, playing basketball, Computer Club on Thursdays and visits to Grandma (who always has some nice sweets hidden away) and your teacher enters you for the Preliminary Examination in Recorder Playing, in which you just get a pass.

Meanwhile young Wolfgang Amadeus down the road has a professional musician father who is incredibly pushy, and spots that his kid has unusual talent. So he skips basketball, computers and Grandma, plays in the top spot in all the school concerts, and wins all the Junior Music competitions. He even gets gigs playing music for weddings, and still finds time to knock of the odd concerto, which then lies undiscovered for a couple of hundred years. Oh, and in passing, he knocks off Grade 8, getting 99%.

OK, a bit over the top, but I have heard some pretty amazing 7 year olds. The important point is that the same system is used by both. They proceed at their own rate, and go to the level that suits them.

As I said earlier, organising such a system might be complex – but what better way should we spend our working time and public money – writing off the savings of ordinary people by making wild speculations in the City ?

Today’s message: In Music, at least, there is room in the system for both average (or less than average) talent, and outstanding gift. The system is there to facilitate and measure its expression. The real issue is the practical one how to enable all people to make these talents flower. You will be glad to hear that the authorities have in fact already addressed this problem. The answer is of course to stop instrumental lessons at school, and remove Music from an overcrowded curriculum. (“Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit” – popular saying)

Music exams show us an example of criterion-based assessment in action; tasks are set, precise criteria (including for the making of judgements) are laid down, and as many candidates as can achieve this will pass.

In fact as achievements and talents differ, marks vary and traditionally the results fall into four groups (Fail, Pass, Merit, and Distinction – formerly called Honours). Thames Valley University/London College of Music has (to my mind laudably) put in two grades of Fail – a narrow fail and one that is clearly way off the minimum standard. This is helpful as it can show student and teacher what amount of effort is likely to be needed to obtain a pass. It is an excellent example of “customer friendly” examining.

In practice I found that the three grades of success were also really to some extent on the subjective side of the spectrum – the numerical mark was really a refinement of this (a bit like the old Alpha / Alpha plus system). The reasoning was (I think rightly) on the following lines.

At the end of the day what we want from a musical performance is a convincing, moving experience, showing artistic sensitivity by the performer. Such a performance is worth a distinction.

However, a prerequisite of such a performance is an accurate rendering of the score, based on a suitable level of technical competence. Such skill is worthy of a Merit.

It is nevertheless recognised that not all candidates will achieve such a level. Yet their progress should be recognised. A performance containing a certain amount of falling short technically therefore should be awarded a Pass.

There are clearly subjective elements here; the arguments given above apply.

The important thing about all this is that there are no quotas. In practice the percentages fall in the higher grades, because humans tend to grade themselves by what they do. As in all fields, the further you go up the ladder, the more the percentage of people involved declines, as fewer and fewer people have the time, resources, inclination or ability to go on. What percentage of swimmers are willing to put in the hours needed to become an Olympic competitor ?

By contrast, we have been told to expect the imminent collapse of our intellectual life because the percentage of first class degrees has risen (at least in some places) from 7% to 13%. A doubling, yes, but averaging around 10%. Consider it this way. 100% of the population are born. Not 100% even get to school, because some have awful disabilities. They plod on and at 16 many throw in the towel. The same applies at 18, but 50% (roughly) go on to university. More plodding, lots of pressure, “spoon feeding” (see above), many have to work, some have rich parents (7% -? the number in the independent school sector). The end – 10% with firsts. But wait – it’s 10% of the original 50% i.e. 5% of the total age group. Does that seem a high number of unusual intellects in a population ?

This reminds me of a regular gripe I heard at Garnett College of Education – too many students were getting high marks in the Theory (normative again…). I observed always that (a) the majority of our students were graduates – many in Humanities – so had often studied these subjects to a higher level than teacher training required (b) they were highly selected (c) most were highly motivated. So what result would you expect ?

I always assumed during my working life that the First Class degree would typically account for 5 to 10% of the student body. In which case 5% is rather low !

So I decided to check on what those who use the notion of IQ think. (I must admit here to having always been highly suspicious of such measurements, but they are widely accepted and used) The source I found said that 50% of the population have an IQ of 100-110, There were a further 15% up to 120 (which was equated to potential college degree level) and 10% above that. The potential educational level of the latter IQ was Ph.D.

Having admitted to reservations about the IQ measurement process, I am willing to stand corrected on this. But the above does seem to suggest that it would not be strange if, say, 15% of students got a First. If this is so, we can expect further rises. Also it suggests that the system is still in the process of drawing out the potential of students to their theoretical maximum.

Today’s summary: The claim of the critics is that the line at which a First is gained is being moved steadily towards the lower end of the IQ spectrum. But it seems equally plausible that the potential for the current levels of student achievement was always there – but the opportunities were not. Surely a cause for rejoicing, not lamentation ?

“Criticism, though dignified from the earliest ages by the labours of men eminent for knowledge and sagacity, has not yet attained the certainty and stability of science”
Samuel Johnson (creator of the first English dictionary)

“Almost all our knowledge is only probable; and in the small number of things that we are able to know with certainty, in the mathematical sciences themselves, the principal means of arriving at the truth—induction and analogy—are based on probabilities. I believe that we do not know anything for certain, but everything probably” Christiaan Huygens (17th Century astronomer)

“Objective evidence and certitude are doubtless very fine ideals to play with, but where on this moonlit and dream-visited planet are they found?” William James (19th century psychologist and philosopher) The Will to Believe”The demand for scientific objectivity makes it inevitable that every scientific statement must remain tentative for ever”. Karl Popper (philosopher of science) The Logic of Scientific Discovery

Music exams also provide a sorely needed response to another set of issues.

The mixture of a strong inclination to risk aversion, the desire to protect and justify one’s actions, and an absolute obsession with targets and measurability, has given educators (and many others) an increasing nightmare of forms to be filled, and boxes to be ticked. A friend recently took early retirement from teaching, having decided that an impoverished life was preferable to the depressing morass of paper work – assessments, monitoring, reports, statements of aims which had come to mean that she spent more time on such matters to meet the demands of professional administrators than she did on teaching. She seems to be one of a large number of teachers who would at least like to follow the same route.

The latest lunacy of which I have heard is the suggestion that computer marking of examinations will become universal within a decade or so. This is pure sci-fi. The only way in which a machine such as a computer can do this is by reading answers entered (as for example in certain IELTS papers) into boxes into computer readable form (e.g. Y or N, 1,2,3 etc). The IELTS authorities apply this to the Reading and Listening Tests, which are carefully devised to produce answers which can be rendered into such a form. But the same authorities continue to use examiners (human beings with ears, eyes and a brain) to mark the Speaking and Writing Tests. Why ? Because there is no sign that computers, even by using Artificial Intelligence, are anywhere near able to do (even with effort) what humans are supremely equipped to do, which is to assess what they experience according to (often complex) criteria.

Musicians have long recognised this, because it is in the nature of the subject. let’s consider the case of a Grade exam in Piano Playing (the same applies to other instruments).

Normally the student must demonstrate competence in the “nuts and bolts” of music – such as scales, chords, and in the Aural Test, the recognition of the interval (distance) between two notes. These requirements can defined precisely. In the exam a named scale can be requested, to be played at a named speed, volume, and articulation (e.g. staccato). These elements are susceptible to precise measurement, and it would be possible to devise a system which identified every departure from the stated criteria. In fact, this is not done. It would be very costly to create and administer, and I doubt that there would be sufficient improvement on the judgement of a trained examiner, to merit the expense.

The student is also required to perform various pieces (typically three with contrasting natures and problems). These will embody those aspects of technique, style and expression which the Examiner Panel (consisting of experienced examiners) has deemed to be a natural progression logically and musically, and which are also appropriate to a given level of study. Thus, for example, the performance of a Bach fugue would only be expected at a high grade (7 or 8), whereas a Two Part Invention would be a more suitable move into polyphonic music at, say, Grade 5.

It will be useful for some readers if I give an example from a very different type of exam – the Electric Guitar exams of the Registry of Guitar tutors. These also require demonstrations of technical ability. But since improvisation is an essential skill for any player in non-classical areas such as pop, rock or jazz, the ability to improvise is also tested from the earliest stages. This is not the place to go into technical detail, but I can attest from personal experience of the Examiner training sessions, that what counts as competence is very clearly demonstrated in detail (giving for instance the notes which are or are not to be expected, and the types of rhythmic flexibility which a candidate should show). The standards are very clearly articulated, not least because the Registry gives high importance to using examiners who are or have been working musicians, but the latter often expect standards which would be unreasonable demands on the typical learner.

The above examples show that again, the demands of the pieces can in some respects be stated in terms of precise criteria, and are measurable. The same point about the cost of mechanical assessment applies.

However, it is obvious that music is not only or even primarily a matter of definable techniques, and in this it again presents an illustration of what can, and I assert has to hold in a sensible examination system.

The good performer must exhibit an increasing grasp of expression, of the emotional dimension of music, of the nature of authenticity and appropriateness within a given style, and in the “popular” forms, a sense of the precision and movement of rhythm parts.

Again, these can be defined, but they cannot easily be measured. Nor do they need to be, because they can be perceived by a trained listener. At this point, the exam system needs to stop a compulsion to seek out some spurious and in fact unattainable objectivity, but to accept that we are and have to be in the realm of subjective human judgements. A judgement on the “conviction” manifested in a given performance is an opinion, not a measurement.

But this is not to say that any old emotional reaction by the judge will do, that anything goes, and that the candidate’s mark is a matter of chance – which examiner you get – and an arbitrary judgement – whether the examiner happens to like what you do.

This is because the examiner has to be selected by peers, who assess whether his/her understanding of what is to be assessed is indeed professional and in line with what is generally accepted. The latter phrase may horrify some people. They may argue that this allows the existence and power of self-selecting clubs, which may well be out of touch or even opposed to the values of another group.

If by this they mean that the examiners of the Associated Board are not typically interested in, responsive to or capable of judging Heavy Metal music, they are probably right. But the “AS Board” examiners don’t do this, they don’t seek to, and make it quite clear that their exams are not concerned with this sphere of music. By contrast, the Registry Electric Guitar panel does contain such experts (and they are experts).

My point is that in any given area (not just music) there is a body of agreed assumptions and values, which can be stated, monitored or passed on. Of course, once in a lifetime you may have in front of you the next Jimi Hendrix or Charles Ives, who presents you with a musical experience which puzzles, which you do to know how to assess. But exam systems are not there to detect originality and genius, but to assess that widely agreed body of knowledge which the overwhelming mass of the population needs to master. Geniuses have necessarily to make their own way.

By now, many readers may be anxious that such a system is nevertheless open to error or even abuse. I understand this fear. I have been at many standardisation meetings in several spheres, and sometimes the range of marks awarded in the training sessions is worryingly wide. Added to this there is clearly the danger of human error, or (much more rarely) prejudice.

As the matter is ultimately subjective, there must always be some risk. There is and can be no objective truth, no 100% certainty in such matters.

But the danger can be and is minimised in various ways. Standardisation tests (of the examiners), moderation, second marking and other checks are routine. Statistical checks can reveal if there are departures from the norm, which can then be investigated. There is an appeal procedure, to give a further option to candidates who feel that they have suffered some injustice.

The most obvious way to counter the dangers of subjectivity is to increase the numbers of examiners – at a certain point the consensus becomes clear. In practice it is a choice between having one or two. Thus the Cambridge First Certificate in EFL uses two in the Speaking Test; IELTS uses one, backed by recordings which are used for monitoring standards and dealing with appeals. Grade examinations in Music use one, Diploma exams two.

What those who want certainty must realise is that (a) machines won’t do the job (b) it depends how much you are prepared to spend (c) there isn’t any absolute certainty in such areas of knowledge. I believe that point (b) is the one which needs constant repetition, but that politicians don’t say it, for fear of unpopularity. It’s really very simple: you get what you pay for and you pay for what you get. Since there is always a limit on resources, it is the taxpayer who has to decide what the priorities are. Mine are quite simple: health, education, pensions and support during sickness or unemployment. If that means that other goodies are much scarcer, then so be it.

In the present context of music exams I think the level of guarantee of quality is about right, but that there are probably some areas which could be improved. To have four examiners instead of one would offer more guarantee (though it would be daunting for the candidates !) but not such as would merit increasing the administrative costs fourfold.

Today’s message: Music exams show us that in making decisions about assessment we must consider the nature of the knowledge we are dealing with. In the case of Music, (and many other subjects) some aspects are suited to accurate measurement, whereas others need judgement. This inevitably gives a grey area of assessment.

I now want to look at what happens in the Music exam system, and to show how it can point to the answers of many of the criticisms which I have been analysing.

First some facts.

There are two routes for students to follow.

One is based on schools, and leads to GCSE (as an optional subject) and then on to AS and A Levels.

I am sure that it is possible to find large numbers of people who will bemoan the fall in standards in these examinations. Certainly, when I last taught A Level, one could say that the demands of the harmonisation component were considerably less than they were some decades ago. But this is to ignore the wider context of the exam. I would argue that as a musical education, it would be hard to sustain those criticisms. In this the exam reflects the goals I have been calling for, that the school system should primarily be concerned with the education of the whole population. By no means every student who takes an A level (of whatever sort) then chooses to make that subject his/her subject in University, or a career.

I think for the case for the value of GCSE Music is much more overwhelming. I remember interviewing a guitar student who had followed the old system, and saying that I assumed that she already understood chord movements. She denied this vigorously, saying that she had been able to get a good mark simply by the fact that she saw harmony tests as a sort of puzzle, and had no idea at all what the result might mean or sound like. This chimed with my own experience of entering an exam in Music Theory, and being astounded that there was total silence.

When Graham Vulliamy and I wrote “Pop Music in School” we pointed out that Music was one of the least popular school subjects, despite being one of the most important interests of the large majority of students outside school. This in good measure due to the fact that Music lessons were concerned to a large extent with sight singing (a difficult skill) and the lives of the composers. Also “Music” was defined exclusively in “classical” terms,

This is certainly not the case now. The range of the exam both in the aspects of music it covers and its openness to style gives opportunities for students to study and succeed, even when they are not very interested in the wider range of academic work. I remember several contemporaries of my son who were not very able as musicians but got a passable grade which thus recognised their achievement. This came out of a mixture of encouragement by the Music teacher and the possibility of doing a lot of work by focussing on styles (e.g rap) and instruments (e.g. the electric guitar) which appealed to them. The relevance of this to my earlier arguments should be clear.

The second route in musical education is the Grades system. Normally there are eight levels as the basis. To this have been added examinations with a variety of names (Preliminary, Steps etc) which have the aim of grading the progress from total beginner to Grade 1 into smaller steps. In particular this has arisen from recognition of the needs and capabilities of young children, for most of whom the distance to Grade 1(which requires scales, pieces, music reading etc) was intensely depressing and daunting. I have met far too many adults who were put off for life from learning an instrument, which they imagined to be a grinding and soul-deadening process. The division of the learning process into smaller steps fits entirely with my call for a system which makes it possible for the mass of people to gain recognition for their efforts and talents. To my mind it presents a model for education.

Now this may seem at odds with a system where there is rightly increasing criticism that students are over-examined. But I think it is not, because there is an important difference. The Music student takes things in small steps. The relevance of the exams is obvious. Above all, they prepare for them at their own pace.

I appreciate that this could cause massive headaches for the current education system which likes to think of “cohorts”. Students are grouped together and must run at the same pace. This very convenient – but are we talking about convenience or the best interests of our young people ? The system does not exist, because no one has really tried to formulate a different structure, that is tailored more closely to the diversity of talent and motivation between students.

Apart from a more subtle grading at the novice level, a similar process exists post-Grade 8. Instead of the earlier leap to the standard basic professional qualification (Licentiate e.g. LRAM) there are now typically two intermediate stages. Again this gives flexibility. It gives recognition to those who decide that they do not wish or are unable to go so far. It is possible to get a meaningful qualification without the commitment to full professional training.

This means that there might be as many as 14 steps from first interest to full professional status, as compared to the 3-4 tiers in academic subjects. Each step is therefore less awesomely significant.

Today’s moral: Within the spectrum of Music examinations there is a wide range of competences which are tested – you can for example study the Sikh Musical Tradition (LCMM/Thames Valley Board) – and two major streams – one for “broader education” and one for “applied skills”. In the latter progress can be made in small increments, but the more talented can rapidly move to the most advanced levels. The system therefore exhibits how it is possible to cater for a wide range of interests, in a very flexible manner.

“My personal feeling is that this is how any further improvement of the world will be done: by individuals making Quality decisions and that’s all… Quality tends to fan out like waves. The Quality job he didn’t think anyone was going to see is seen, and the person who sees it feels a little better because of it, and is likely to pass that feeling on to others, and in that way the Quality tends to keep on going. ” Robert Pirsig, Zen and the Art of Motor Cycle Maintenance.

On the basis of what I have said so far, you might reasonably think that I am an extreme anti-elitist. So it’s time to make clear that it seems to me glaringly obvious that we need elites – and we want elites.

Let’s list a few examples:

· Does the country need to compete in the world…?
· Do we want someone to make the discoveries which will beat cancer…?
· Do you (or will you) want the best for your children…?
· Do you want England (substitute your own country!) to win the World Cup…?
· Do you want to do something in your life which is the very best you can do…?
· If you have to have an operation do you want a surgeon who is at the top of the profession,
or will you settle for someone straight out of medical school…?
· Do you prefer the music of the Beatles (substitute your own favourite) or the karaoke night
down at the pub…?

Put like this, then, answers are obvious. (The last one is a trick question- the two listenings serve different purposes and are not mutually incompatible).

So I maintain that we not only need, but want elites.

This is certainly true in music. You can certainly get huge pleasure from supporting a set of young people you know who have formed a band. But sometimes you want – you crave – some music which you feel is brilliant, is moving, is of outstanding quality, is made by someone whose sheer talent knocks you out. Note that I don’t mention any names. What you choose is an intensely personal matter. You may have to conform publicly to what They say is good, but you know inside yourself that, though everyone likes the music of Augustus Kettledrum, and you can see that it has a lot going for it, it’s not what really gets you. My argument doesn’t require you to find that Beethoven, The Beatles, Billie Holiday or Bono is the best – just that you find that sometimes you need what you define as Quality.

There was a book some years ago called Zen and the Art of Motor Cycle Maintenance (no, I’m not kidding you). The author deals with just this point – it’s worth a read, if you can find it. It’s not an easy book, but it is very relevant to the modern world, gives a lot of food for thought..

In the latest round of “dumbing down” talk, they’ve finally discovered that maybe the universities claim standards that they don’t deliver. My previous points still hold. Of course a university education is based on some sort of selection, and may never be right for everyone (extreme example: do we expect someone with severe learning difficulties to get a degree ? Haven’t they got enough problems ?). But when the intake is 50% of the population, university courses are a form of mass education. So my impression is that, again, according to interpretation, the students are “spoon-fed” or the education given is devised to meet the reality of their needs (especially when the poor devils have to work in MacDonalds or whatever in order to survive).

To take things forward, let’s give the critics the sacrifice they are asking for. Let’s say “Yes, yes, State schools and Post-1992 universities are not giving the type of education which independent schools, Oxbridge, grammar schools (extend the list as desired) are giving”.

Now we are entitled to point out (again) that State systems are trying to cope with an immensely enlarged demand for education, which tries to give education and opportunity to those who did not have it before. It tries to devise systems of testing which are relevant to the candidates, are accurate, efficient and just. It requires those who judge and those who teach to define and defend what they do, and not just to rely on their status to back up their assertion and assumption that they know.

But of course, this does not deal with the question of elites.

There are already certain elite groups – independent schools, grammar schools, Oxbridge, the Russell Group of Universities. It’s fairly clear that, in general, these institutions are scooping the pool of prizes. Is that surprising ? For instance, at a meeting for prospective parents, I heard the Head Teacher of a very well known London independent school answer a question about provision for some sort of Special Need ( I think it was dyslexia) as follows: “The school does not provide for that sort of need. We are not equipped to do so. Your son would probably be better off in a different institution” (And who does, by law, provide such services…?)

If you only take the most able pupils, who have gone (survived ?) through a long period of preparation and a testing and highly competitive set of norm-based exams, you are likely to get pretty good results. Whereas if you also have to put in substantial amounts of resources in supporting the weak, needy and vulnerable, you are starting with an immense handicap in a competitive system. It’s as if the England football team had always to include me – they wouldn’t even beat the Faeroe Islands !

The success of the institutions mentioned above comes above all from having a very clear set of objectives. The school mentioned was willing to offer scholarships to poor boys who showed exceptional ability in Sciences or Mathematics. They are doing this with the aim (set out in print) of “producing some of the next generation of Noble Prize winners”. Yes, you did read that – I too nearly fell off my seat when I saw it.

But isn’t that what our national leaders should be saying ? That we as a people need to find the undoubted body of exceptional talent, which may come from a back street in Burnley, a croft in the Highlands, from above a Bangladeshi restaurant in Brick Lane – or even a stockbroker belt home in Surrey. We need to find the talent, and then not be ashamed to encourage it, instead of avoiding this in the name of equality. The unfortunate person with a wasting disease or Alzheimer’s doesn’t need “equality” – they need a medical genius to provide the solution for them.

The problem is not that there are elites (and always will be, because talents vary) but that becoming part of the elite depends too much on money and background. In my day, there was some remedy – as there was for people as diverse as Melvyn Bragg and Ken Clarke – through scholarships. The problem (ignored at the time) was what happened (or rather did not happen) to my other friends who didn’t manage to get over the hurdles.

Thought for the Day: We need to make the process of identification of talent applicable to the whole population, and we need to create a system set up to handle those whom we find in this talent spotting exercise. Football clubs do it – why can’t the Government ?